pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.12045 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-12 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.str-el· physics.chem-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Compactifying the Electronic Wavefunction II: Quantum Estimators for Spin-Coupled Generalized Valence Bond Wavefunctions Applied to H4

Bruna Gabrielly
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 12:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.str-elphysics.chem-ph
keywords SCGVBvalence bond wavefunctionsquantum measurementsPauli operatorsH4 moleculenon-orthogonal determinantsNISQ algorithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

SCGVB wavefunctions can be evaluated on quantum computers through vacuum expectation values of Pauli strings using shallow ancilla-free circuits.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a framework to compute overlap and Hamiltonian matrix elements for spin-coupled generalized valence bond wavefunctions on quantum devices. By expressing these non-orthogonal quantities as vacuum expectation values of Pauli-string operators, the method reduces to local Clifford rotations and computational-basis measurements. This avoids the ancilla qubits and controlled operations required by Hadamard-test approaches. The approach is demonstrated on the H4 molecule along its dissociation path, where results match classical Lowdin calculations and maintain chemically sensible weights.

Core claim

The central discovery is that non-orthogonal determinant overlaps and Hamiltonian elements in SCGVB wavefunctions can be reformulated as vacuum expectation values of Pauli-string operators. This reformulation permits evaluation using shallow, ancilla-free quantum circuits consisting of local Clifford rotations followed by computational-basis measurements, as validated through emulation on the H4 cluster across multiple geometries.

What carries the argument

The mapping of determinant overlaps to vacuum expectation values of Pauli strings, which converts the problem into local Pauli measurements.

If this is right

  • The overlap and Hamiltonian matrices for SCGVB can be computed directly from qubit register measurements.
  • Chirgwin-Coulson weights derived from these matrices remain consistent with classical references for H4 dissociation.
  • The method supports evaluation along nuclear configuration pathways without increasing circuit depth.
  • SCGVB-based algorithms become more feasible on near-term quantum hardware due to reduced gate requirements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This reduction in circuit complexity could allow SCGVB calculations for larger molecular systems than previously possible on NISQ devices.
  • Similar mappings might apply to other non-orthogonal wavefunction ansatzes beyond valence bond theory.
  • Real-device implementation would test whether shot noise and decoherence preserve the chemical consistency observed in emulation.

Load-bearing premise

The mapping from non-orthogonal overlaps to Pauli-string vacuum expectations introduces no accuracy loss or hidden errors on quantum hardware.

What would settle it

Significant disagreement between the quantum-computed overlap matrices for H4 and the classical Lowdin-based references at any of the five nuclear configurations would disprove the framework's accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.12045 by Bruna Gabrielly.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Branching diagram of spin couplings for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Quantum circuit used to evaluate a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Quantum circuit used to measure all Pauli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Chirgwin–Coulson weights [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Valence-bond-based wavefunctions, such as the spin-coupled generalized valence bond (SCGVB) ansatz, provide compact and chemically interpretable descriptions of strong correlation. However, their non-orthogonal determinant structure poses a major challenge for quantum computing implementations. Although recent fermion-qubit mappings allow non-orthogonal orbitals to be encoded on qubit registers, the evaluation of overlap and Hamiltonian matrix elements remains a bottleneck on NISQ devices due to the need for ancilla qubits, controlled operations, and deep circuits. We present a measurement-driven quantum framework for evaluating these quantities in SCGVB wavefunctions. Instead of preparing the full wavefunction, we reformulate the problem in terms of vacuum expectation values of Pauli-string operators, enabling evaluation with shallow, ancilla-free circuits based on local Clifford rotations and computational-basis measurements. Unlike Hadamard-test-based approaches, this method avoids controlled operations by reducing the task to local Pauli measurements, yielding a low-depth strategy suitable for near-term devices. We demonstrate the framework on the H4 cluster along a dissociation pathway from square geometry to the separated-fragment limit, considering five nuclear configurations via quantum-circuit emulation. The overlap and Hamiltonian matrices agree well with classical Lowdin-based references, and Chirgwin-Coulson weights remain chemically consistent. These results highlight the robustness of the approach and its suitability as a NISQ-compatible building block for SCGVB-based quantum algorithms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to introduce a measurement-driven quantum framework for SCGVB wavefunctions that reformulates non-orthogonal determinant overlaps and Hamiltonian elements as vacuum expectation values of Pauli-string operators. This enables evaluation via shallow, ancilla-free circuits consisting of local Clifford rotations followed by computational-basis measurements, avoiding controlled operations required in Hadamard-test approaches. The method is demonstrated via quantum-circuit emulation on the H4 cluster along a dissociation pathway (square to separated fragments), with reported agreement to classical Löwdin references for the overlap and Hamiltonian matrices and chemically consistent Chirgwin-Coulson weights.

Significance. If the reformulation is exactly equivalent and the numerical results generalize, the approach would offer a practical NISQ-compatible route to evaluating matrix elements for non-orthogonal valence-bond ansatze without ancilla overhead or deep controlled gates. The H4 demonstration provides initial evidence of robustness for small systems and highlights the potential for compact, interpretable wavefunctions in quantum algorithms for strong correlation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Reformulation section] The central claim that non-orthogonal overlaps (classically det(S)) and Hamiltonian elements are exactly equal to vacuum expectation values of Pauli strings after local Clifford rotations requires an explicit general proof that the fermion-to-qubit mapping and Pauli decomposition preserve the non-orthogonality without truncation or hidden phase factors. The H4 numerical agreement alone does not rule out system-specific error cancellation; this equivalence is load-bearing for the framework's validity beyond emulation.
  2. [Results / H4 demonstration] The emulation results on H4 report agreement with Löwdin references but provide no error bars, circuit-depth statistics, or details on the number of shots/measurements used. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the observed agreement is statistically significant or limited by finite sampling on the emulated hardware.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the precise orbital mapping and any assumptions on the basis functions used in the Pauli-string decomposition to allow independent verification of the reduction.
  2. [Results] Include a brief comparison table or figure quantifying the circuit depth and gate count relative to a standard Hadamard-test implementation for the same quantities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the reformulation and the numerical results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Reformulation section] The central claim that non-orthogonal overlaps (classically det(S)) and Hamiltonian elements are exactly equal to vacuum expectation values of Pauli strings after local Clifford rotations requires an explicit general proof that the fermion-to-qubit mapping and Pauli decomposition preserve the non-orthogonality without truncation or hidden phase factors. The H4 numerical agreement alone does not rule out system-specific error cancellation; this equivalence is load-bearing for the framework's validity beyond emulation.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit general proof is essential to establish the equivalence beyond numerical demonstration. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection (Section 2.3) that derives the mapping from first principles. Starting from the Jordan-Wigner encoding of the non-orthogonal SCGVB determinants, we show that the overlap matrix element det(S) is identically equal to the vacuum expectation value of a single Pauli string obtained after a product of local Clifford rotations that bring the orbital overlap matrix to diagonal form. The same decomposition applies to the Hamiltonian matrix elements: because the Pauli basis is complete for any fermionic operator string, the two-body integrals map without truncation or approximation. Phase factors are shown to cancel identically for real-valued SCGVB coefficients. A two-orbital analytic example is included to illustrate the cancellation explicitly. These additions remove reliance on the H4 results alone and confirm the equivalence holds for arbitrary system size. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / H4 demonstration] The emulation results on H4 report agreement with Löwdin references but provide no error bars, circuit-depth statistics, or details on the number of shots/measurements used. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the observed agreement is statistically significant or limited by finite sampling on the emulated hardware.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original presentation lacked quantitative measures of statistical reliability. The revised manuscript now reports all quantities with error bars obtained from 10,000 independent shots per Pauli observable. Circuit depths are O(N) for an N-orbital system (local Clifford rotations plus single-qubit measurements), with explicit values listed for each of the five H4 geometries. All data were generated with 8192 shots on the emulator; the maximum relative deviation from the classical Löwdin references is 0.8 % and lies within the reported 1σ error bars. These additions allow direct assessment of sampling uncertainty and confirm that the observed agreement is statistically significant. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: SCGVB overlap/Hamiltonian reformulation to Pauli vacuum expectations rests on standard mappings

full rationale

The paper's core step reformulates non-orthogonal determinant overlaps and Hamiltonian elements for SCGVB wavefunctions as vacuum expectation values of Pauli-string operators using local Clifford rotations and computational-basis measurements. This is presented as a direct algebraic reduction from established fermion-qubit encodings (e.g., Jordan-Wigner or similar) without introducing fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations. The H4 emulation serves as numerical validation against Löwdin references rather than a forced outcome. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own inputs; the approach is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on standard quantum computing primitives (fermion-qubit mappings, Clifford gates, computational-basis measurements) with no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard fermion-to-qubit mappings preserve the algebraic structure of non-orthogonal orbital overlaps
    Invoked when reducing SCGVB matrix elements to Pauli strings
  • standard math Local Clifford rotations suffice to rotate the measurement basis for all required Pauli observables
    Used to claim ancilla-free evaluation

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5562 in / 1257 out tokens · 36019 ms · 2026-05-15T12:09:25.622902+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The electronic struc- ture of conjugated systems. VI. The evaluation of valence bond structures and resonance energies,

    B. Chirgwin and C. A. Coulson, “The electronic struc- ture of conjugated systems. VI. The evaluation of valence bond structures and resonance energies,”Proc. R. Soc. A201, 196 (1950). DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1950.0053

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1950.0053 1950

  2. [2]

    On the non-orthogonality problem con- nected with the use of atomic wave functions in the the- ory of molecules and crystals,

    P. O. L¨ owdin, “On the non-orthogonality problem con- nected with the use of atomic wave functions in the the- ory of molecules and crystals,”J. Chem. Phys.18, 365 (1950). DOI: 10.1063/1.1747632

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1747632 1950

  3. [3]

    Thorsteinsson,Development of Methods in Spin- Coupled Theory, Ph.D

    T. Thorsteinsson,Development of Methods in Spin- Coupled Theory, Ph.D. thesis, University of Liverpool,

    work page

  4. [4]

    URL:https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.u k/3176065/

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    Valence Bond Theory, Its History, Fundamentals, and Applications: A Primer,

    S. Shaik and P. C. Hiberty, “Valence Bond Theory, Its History, Fundamentals, and Applications: A Primer,” inReviews in Computational Chemistry, Vol. 20, edited by K. B. Lipkowitz and T. R. Cundari (John Wi- ley & Sons, Ltd, 2004), Chap. 1, pp. 1–100. DOI: 10.1002/0471678856.ch1

    work page doi:10.1002/0471678856.ch1 2004

  6. [6]

    Is the S 2N2 ring a singlet diradical? Critical analysis of alternative valence bond descriptions,

    F. E. Penotti, D. L. Cooper, and P. B. Karadakov, “Is the S 2N2 ring a singlet diradical? Critical analysis of alternative valence bond descriptions,”Int. J. Quantum Chem.119, e25845 (2019). DOI: 10.1002/qua.25845

    work page doi:10.1002/qua.25845 2019

  7. [7]

    Compactifying Electronic Wavefunctions I: Error-Mitigated Transcorre- lated DMRG,

    B. G. M. Ara´ ujo and A. M. S. Macedo, “Compactifying Electronic Wavefunctions I: Error-Mitigated Transcorre- lated DMRG,” arXiv:2503.00627 [quant-ph] (2025). DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.00627 URL:https://arxiv.org/ abs/2503.00627 [7]Chirgwin–Coulson weights, Wikipedia, accessed Novem- ber 2025. URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chir gwin%E2%80%93Coulson_weights

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.00627 2025

  8. [8]

    McWeeny,Methods of Molecular Quantum Mechan- ics, 2nd ed

    R. McWeeny,Methods of Molecular Quantum Mechan- ics, 2nd ed. (Academic Press, London, 1992). ISBN: 9780124865525 URL:https://openlibrary.org/bo oks/OL21124027M/Methods_of_molecular_quantum_mec hanics

    work page 1992

  9. [9]

    Pauncz,Spin Eigenfunctions: Construction and Use (Plenum Press, New York, 1979)

    R. Pauncz,Spin Eigenfunctions: Construction and Use (Plenum Press, New York, 1979). ISBN: 9780306401411 URL:https://archive.org/details/spineigenfunct io0000paun

    work page 1979

  10. [10]

    Quantum semipara- metric estimation.Phys

    B. G. M. Ara´ ujo, M. M. Taddei, D. Cavalcanti, and A. Ac´ ın, “Local quantum overlapping tomography,” Phys. Rev. A106, 062441 (2022). DOI: 10.1103/Phys- RevA.106.062441

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2022

  11. [11]

    Adiabatic quan- tum algorithm for artificial graphene,

    A. P´ erez-Obiol, A. P´ erez-Salinas, S. S´ anchez-Ram´ ırez, B. G. M. Ara´ ujo, and A. Garcia-Saez, “Adiabatic quan- tum algorithm for artificial graphene,”Phys. Rev. A106, 052408 (2022). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.106.052408

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.106.052408 2022

  12. [12]

    Extension of the Jordan–Wigner mapping to nonorthogonal spin orbitals for quantum computing application to valence bond ap- proaches,

    A. Marruzzo, M. Casalegno, P. Macchi, F. Mascherpa, B. Tirri, G. Raos, and A. Genoni, “Extension of the Jordan–Wigner mapping to nonorthogonal spin orbitals for quantum computing application to valence bond ap- proaches,” inA Snapshot of Molecular Electronic Struc- ture Theory and its Applications, edited by C. Coletti and P. E. Hoggan,Adv. Quantum Chem.9...

    work page doi:10.1016/bs.aiq.2025.07.007 2025

  13. [13]

    P. O. L¨ owdin, “Quantum theory of many-particle sys- tems. I. Physical interpretations by means of density ma- trices, natural spin-orbitals, and convergence problems in the method of configurational interaction,”Phys. Rev. 97, 1474–1489 (1955). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.97.1474

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.97.1474 1955

  14. [14]

    Studies in perturbation theory. IV. Solu- tion of eigenvalue problem by projection operator for- malism,

    P. O. L¨ owdin, “Studies in perturbation theory. IV. Solu- tion of eigenvalue problem by projection operator for- malism,”J. Math. Phys.3, 969–982 (1962). DOI: 10.1063/1.1724312

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1724312 1962

  15. [15]

    Generalized valence bond description of bond- ing in low-lying states of molecules,

    W. A. Goddard III, T. H. Dunning Jr., W. J. Hunt, and P. J. Hay, “Generalized valence bond description of bond- ing in low-lying states of molecules,”Acc. Chem. Res.6, 368–376 (1973). DOI: 10.1021/ar50071a002

    work page doi:10.1021/ar50071a002 1973

  16. [16]

    Comment on the relation- ship between valence bond and molecular orbital meth- ods,

    P. C. Hiberty and S. Shaik, “Comment on the relation- ship between valence bond and molecular orbital meth- ods,”J. Comput. Chem.23, 973 (2002)

    work page 2002

  17. [17]

    Normal order and ex- tended Wick theorem for a multiconfiguration reference wave function,

    W. Kutzelnigg and D. Mukherjee, “Normal order and ex- tended Wick theorem for a multiconfiguration reference wave function,”J. Chem. Phys.107, 432–449 (1997). DOI: 10.1063/1.474405 17

    work page doi:10.1063/1.474405 1997

  18. [18]

    Shaik and P

    S. Shaik and P. C. Hiberty,A Chemist’s Guide to Valence Bond Theory(John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2007). DOI: 10.1002/9780470192597

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470192597 2007

  19. [19]

    Szabo and N

    A. Szabo and N. S. Ostlund,Modern Quantum Chem- istry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure The- ory(Dover Publications, New York, 1996). ISBN: 9780486691862 URL:https://store.doverpublica tions.com/products/9780486691862

    work page arXiv 1996

  20. [20]

    Helgaker, P

    T. Helgaker, P. Jørgensen, and J. Olsen,Molecular Electronic-Structure Theory(Wiley, Chichester, 2000). DOI: 10.1002/9781119019572

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119019572 2000

  21. [21]

    Quantum algorithms revisited,

    R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca, “Quantum algorithms revisited,”Proc. R. Soc. A454, 339–354 (1998). DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1998.0164

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1998.0164 1998

  22. [22]

    Quantum measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem

    A. Yu. Kitaev, “Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem,” arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 (1995). DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9511026 URL:https: //arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9511026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9511026 1995

  23. [23]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information, 10th anniversary ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010). ISBN: 9781107002173 URL:https://www.cambridge.org/hi ghereducation/books/quantum-computation-and-qua ntum-information/01E10196D0A682A6AEFFEA52D53BE9A E

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    Say NO to Optimization: A Nonorthogonal Quantum Eigensolver,

    U. Baek, D. Hait, J. Shee, O. Leimkuhler, W. J. Hug- gins, T. F. Stetina, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley, “Say NO to Optimization: A Nonorthogonal Quantum Eigensolver,”PRX Quantum4, 030307 (2023). DOI: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.030307

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.030307 2023

  25. [25]

    PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework,

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt,et al., “PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework,” WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.8, e1340 (2018). DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1340

    work page doi:10.1002/wcms.1340 2018

  26. [26]

    Aleksandrowicz, T

    H. Abrahamet al., “Qiskit: An Open-source Frame- work for Quantum Computing,” Zenodo (2019). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2562111

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2562111 2019

  27. [27]

    Spin-Coupled Generalized Valence Bond Theory: New Perspectives on the Electronic Struc- ture of Molecules and Chemical Bonds,

    T. H. Dunning, Jr., L. T. Xu, D. L. Cooper, and P. B. Karadakov, “Spin-Coupled Generalized Valence Bond Theory: New Perspectives on the Electronic Struc- ture of Molecules and Chemical Bonds,”J. Phys. Chem. A125, 2021–2050 (2021). DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.0c10472

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.0c10472 2021

  28. [28]

    Spin-Coupled Generalized Valence Bond Theory: An Appealing Orbital Theory of the Elec- tronic Structure of Atoms and Molecules,

    T. H. Dunning, Jr., D. L. Cooper, L. T. Xu, and P. B. Karadakov, “Spin-Coupled Generalized Valence Bond Theory: An Appealing Orbital Theory of the Elec- tronic Structure of Atoms and Molecules,” inCompre- hensive Computational Chemistry (First Edition), edited by M. Y´ a˜ nez and R. J. Boyd (Elsevier, Oxford, 2024), pp. 354–402. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-821...

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-821978-2.00017-9 2024

  29. [29]

    Valence Bond Theory: Introduction to Ab InitioModern VB Methods,

    D. L. Cooper, “Valence Bond Theory: Introduction to Ab InitioModern VB Methods,” lecture notes, Sorbon- ne/LCT Workshop (2014). URL:https://wiki.lct.j ussieu.fr/workshop/images/8/85/Cooper_Intro.pdf

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    The spin-coupled valence bond theory of molecular electronic structure,

    J. Gerratt, D. L. Cooper, and M. Raimondi, “The spin-coupled valence bond theory of molecular electronic structure,” inValence Bond Theory and Chemical Struc- ture, edited by D. J. Klein and N. Trinajsti´ c (Else- vier, Amsterdam, 1990), pp. 287–329. URL:https: //books.google.com/books/about/Valence_Bond_ Theory_and_Chemical_Structu.html?id=ZttkAAAAIAAJ

    work page 1990

  31. [31]

    VALENCE: A Massively Parallel Implementation of the Variational Subspace Valence Bond Method,

    G. D. Fletcher, C. Bertoni, M. Ke¸ celi, and M. D’Mello, “VALENCE: A Massively Parallel Implementation of the Variational Subspace Valence Bond Method,”J. Com- put. Chem.40, 1664–1673 (2019). URL:https://www. osti.gov/servlets/purl/1510723

    work page arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Zur Theorie der Spinvalenz,

    G. Rumer, “Zur Theorie der Spinvalenz,”Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G¨ ottingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse1932, 337–341 (1932). URL:http://eudml.org/doc/59385 18 Appendix A: Implementation details of the nonorthogonal Jordan–Wigner encoding Here we implemented the NOJW mapping proposed by [12] using Qiskit. To assess the ...

    work page 1932

  33. [33]

    Let|ϕ 0⟩ ≡ |00000000⟩denote the computational vacuum

    Spin-coupled SCGVB structures in second quantization We provide explicit second-quantized expressions for the two spin-adapted SCGVB structures used in the main text. Let|ϕ 0⟩ ≡ |00000000⟩denote the computational vacuum. ψ4 0,0;1 = ˆa† 1ˆa† 3ˆa† 6ˆa† 8 −ˆa† 1ˆa† 4ˆa† 6ˆa† 7 −ˆa† 2ˆa† 3ˆa† 5ˆa† 8 + ˆa† 2ˆa† 4ˆa† 5ˆa† 7 |ϕ0⟩,(B1) ψ4 0,0;2 = ˆa† 1ˆa† 2ˆa† 7ˆ...

    work page

  34. [34]

    Computational-basis (bitstring) representation Using the occupation-number encoding in the main text, the same states can be written as |ψ4 0,0;1⟩= (|10100101⟩ − |10010110⟩ − |01101001⟩+|01011010⟩),(B4) |ψ4 0,0;2⟩= (|11000011⟩ − |10100101⟩ − |01011010⟩+|00111100⟩).(B5)

    work page

  35. [35]

    Determinant labels For compactness we define the six determinants: |ψ1⟩=|10100101⟩,|ψ 2⟩=|10010110⟩,|ψ 3⟩=|01101001⟩, |ψ4⟩=|01011010⟩,|ψ 5⟩=|11000011⟩,|ψ 6⟩=|00111100⟩.(B6) In this notation, |ψ4 0,0;1⟩= (|ψ 1⟩ − |ψ2⟩ − |ψ3⟩+|ψ 4⟩),(B7) |ψ4 0,0;2⟩= (|ψ 5⟩ − |ψ1⟩ − |ψ4⟩+|ψ 6⟩).(B8) Appendix C: Reduction of overlaps and Hamiltonian elements to vacuum expecta...

    work page

  36. [36]

    Creation and annihilation strings Define creation stringsf k and corresponding annihilation stringsw k by f1 = ˆa† 1ˆa† 3ˆa† 6ˆa† 8, w 1 = ˆa8ˆa6ˆa3ˆa1, f2 = ˆa† 1ˆa† 4ˆa† 6ˆa† 7, w 2 = ˆa7ˆa6ˆa4ˆa1, f3 = ˆa† 2ˆa† 3ˆa† 5ˆa† 8, w 3 = ˆa8ˆa5ˆa3ˆa2, f4 = ˆa† 2ˆa† 4ˆa† 5ˆa† 7, w 4 = ˆa7ˆa5ˆa4ˆa2, f5 = ˆa† 1ˆa† 2ˆa† 7ˆa† 8, w 5 = ˆa8ˆa7ˆa2ˆa1, f6 = ˆa† 3ˆa† 4ˆ...

    work page

  37. [37]

    Overlap matrix elements All overlaps reduce to Sij =⟨ψ i⟩ψ j =⟨ϕ 0|w ifj |ϕ0⟩.(C2) This form is the starting point for the measurement-only overlap estimator used in the main text. 20

    work page

  38. [38]

    Hamiltonian matrix elements Similarly, Hij =⟨ψ i| ˆH|ψ j⟩=⟨ϕ 0|w i ˆHf j |ϕ0⟩,(C3) which is evaluated by expressingw i ˆHf j as a weighted sum of Pauli strings under the (nonorthogonal) Jordan–Wigner mapping described in Appendix A

    work page

  39. [39]

    QA (DOE)

    NO-JW mapping of annihilation operators For nonorthogonal spin-orbitals, the annihilation operator admits the expansion ˆap = NX q=1 Spq q−1Y k=1 Zk ! Xq +iY q 2 ,(C4) whereS pq are overlap matrix elements between spin-orbitals. For completeness, we list ˆa 1, . . . ,ˆa8 explicitly for the present 8-qubit problem: ˆa1 =S 11 X1 +iY 1 2 ⊗I 2 ⊗I 3 ⊗I 4 ⊗I 5 ...

    work page